Equalities
We previously invited general comments on the Equality Act. To make things simpler, the measures in the Equality Act have been divided into the eight themes, and this page is now closed for comment. To comment, click here. All the comments received below will be considered in the Equalities challenge process.
Government’s bonfire of carers’ rights | Equality and Diversity at LSE said on June 13, 2011 at 9:46 am
[deleted text] government claims to be making a ‘bonfire of red tape’. But what is under attack are those rights that foster a more equal labour market, and which allow [deleted text]
Mirfat Sulaiman said on June 13, 2011 at 8:46 am
I think they should be left as they are.
Darren Wilson said on June 13, 2011 at 8:37 am
The protections ought to remain as they are because they provide a legal remedy to individual instances of unfair treatment stemming from well attested aspects of social inequality. However, as a practitioner of equality and diversity I do think that the post McPherson enquiry additions to the legal landscape that deal with rooting out institutional forms of discrimination need to be thought through again as they are somewhat bureaucratic. I am referring to the Equality Duty; including ‘equality analyses’ or as they have generally been described, ‘equality impact assessments.’ I consider it important that some form of standard is in place for large organisations to follow but I would like to see more thought put into this and something developed that it realistic and practicable.
steve brumby said on June 13, 2011 at 8:31 am
there is not enough publicity about the act and council’s are being slow in implementing the act. the act should be strengthened to make it unlawful for service providers/buildings etc to make their services/building accessible to disabled people, particularly those with mobility needs I.E wheelchair users.
John Walsh said on June 12, 2011 at 7:24 pm
The Equality Act is vital to establish some measure of fairness for disadvantaged groups in society, particularly the most underprivilaged minorities, viz. the ethnic and disabled minorities. The provisions of the Act should be strengthened, especially for the most disadvantaged groups.
Arun Kumar said on June 11, 2011 at 6:24 pm
the purpose of Equality Act, 2010 is to stop all sort of discrimination in the society. Though it coveres a wide range of areas, unfortunately caste based discrimination has been left out. Caste is a phenomenon peculiar to the people migrated from the Indian sub continent. In caste system, one is judged by one’s origin of birth rather than worth. As a large number of people are living in the UK from the Indian sub continent, caste discrimination is widely spread in this section of society. The victims of caste discrimination suffer silently as there is no legal remedy to protect so called lower castes. Goverment’s own survey confirms that there is enough evidence to prove the existence of caste discriminarion. Even then they are reluctant to declare caste based discrimination unlawful.
Dora Kostiuk said on June 11, 2011 at 1:41 pm
I think that the Equalities Act 2010 was initially set up to protect the rights of the more vulnerable members of society, who to date are not adequately protected in areas like the workplace. By confusing the object of the Act with areas like Health and Safety, it is giving employers an opportunity to continue to discriminate against vulnerable people. If a person requires specialist equipment in order to work, this is not only on health and safety grounds, but to enable that person has the same levels of comfort and ability as his/her workmates. If we are to encourage more disabled people to work instead of going on invalidity benefit, then the needs of these people will have to be met. Employers will have every excuse to refuse employment to these people and/or to make employment very difficult for these people if this Act does not come into effect to safeguard disabled and other vulnerable members of society.
A Petrie said on June 11, 2011 at 11:53 am
The Equality Act should not be scrapped or merged with other existing regulations.
There is a lot in the Act that provides important protection for individuals. For example, the consideration of equality impacts can be an important part of understanding the potential impact on different parts of the community and so lead to better policy making, more effective interventions and more efficient services.
The Act could be improved by implementing the requirement to consider socio-economic inequality as was considered but dropped.
Jayne Monkhouse OBE said on June 10, 2011 at 4:58 pm
People should be treated on the basis of who they are rather than what they are or where they come from. The Equality Act and the laws that preceded it were designed to ensure that this principle was a made a reality and to help build a society where everyone has an equal opportunity to participate and to succeed in work and education. Co-incidentally they ensured the UK’s compliance with EU equality statutes. The Equality Act cannot be scrapped. Its provisions cannot be subsumed into other pieces of legislation as there is no other legislation that underpins our right to live and work free of discrimination. The Equality Act could indeed be made better – the duty to reduce socio-economic disadvantage, the provisions on dual discrimination and the provision to make caste a protected characteristic could be implemented as originally intended. The specific duties could actually be made meaningful. Yet even before they have been used, the government is looking to review the provisions on 3rd party harassment with a view to repealing them. This doesn’t look like a strong commitment to equality to me.
Jane Lane said on June 10, 2011 at 4:57 pm
it is essential that the Equality Act is kept as it is. In times of economic stress and increasing disadvantage it is vital to continue to protect vulnerable citizens so often subjected to harassment and discrimination. With regard to racism, so many people still do not understand what it is, especially institutional racism, so do not grasp the subtle ways that discrimination is perpetuated. Our existing legislation is one way of checking what is going on. For example, equality impact assessments on government decisions are important identifies of possible discrimination. In ignoring its statutory duty to conduct such assessments effectively the government demeans itself. I am proud of the British legislation against discrimination and for the promotion of equality. To dilute it or remove the important aspects would be a backwards step in terms of British committment to fairness and justice
Line Nyhagen Predelli said on June 10, 2011 at 2:53 pm
The Equality Act is necessary to keep as it protects individuals against unfair treatment on the grounds of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, pregnancy or disability.
If the Equality Act does not remain intact, public bodies may have no duty to consider how to eliminate discrimination against under-represented groups.
L Souvarine said on June 10, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Carrying out equality analyses as a routine part of the policy process helps with better decision making overall. Civil servants are often compelled to do more research and analysis in order to comply with the public sector equality duty than they would otherwise. In doing so, they develop a better understanding of the potential issues and practical implications of their work. They interpret evidence and data more objectively, document the entire decision making process more effectively and often present a more complete and unbiased picture of the policy in their submissions. In my experience as a policy specialist, the Act and the public sector equality duty have been very effective tools in improving the quality of our work. The provisions of the Act should be strengthened to further improve transparency – anyone should easily be able to obtain the equality evidence used by public authorities. Also, the socioeconomic duty should be enacted as social class is highly pertinent indicator of broader social inequity – everyone except the Government seems to appreciate this!
Nat Raha said on June 10, 2011 at 2:12 pm
To scrap, merge of simplify the Equality Act 2010 would be to discount the work and development that went into the creation of this act over the years preceding it being legislated. As is clear, many regulations were effectively merged in this bill, and to even remotely consider scraping it is part of the demonstration of why so many individuals in the UK are highly sceptical of the coalition government.
There are always going to be things that can help improve legislation – and the consultation of stake holders in developing the Equality Act would have undoubtedly highlighted some of these (which may not have made it to the act). I can provide the example of how the legislation protects individuals who are undergoing or have undergone “gender reassignment”. Whilst this is significantly important in its inclusion, it doesn’t explicitly cover individuals who identify as transgender or trans*, who may not identify as male or female and who aren’t transsexual. I understand that this point (specifically) was raised by stake holders who were consulted by the previous government.
Having undertaken my equalities training this week for my Local Authority employer, I have seen that this legislation is being explained and taught, and the examples of its importance put into practice will be demonstrated as more individuals understand, refer, cite and go to it when need.
Linda Bellos OBE said on June 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Many people have told me that theywish that their Country had such progressive law. I welcome the consolidation of over 100 peiece of former legislation. The new Act provides consistency and fairness, except for the exclusions of class as a protected charecteristic. It has been argued that it is difficult to define social class but it is impossible to define what is a race- aside from the human race. None the less we have had laws in the UK combatting racualk discrimination despite the absence of a definiation of what consistutes a race.
Little progress was made in countering racaial discrimination from 1965 until the implmentation of the 1976 Race Relations Act of 1976 which contained a general duty that local authorities had to meet. It was they how first inroduced equal opportunity polcies. Because they has to, prior to the dity they had routinley excluded eligble ethnic minority employees. This duty was extended to all named public authorities after the murder ot Stephen Lawrence when it was recongised that the plice and other poublic servcies could not be relied upon to voluntarily take equality seriuosly.
Evidence shows that without legislation groups of people will have no recourse to justce fairness or equality unless their rights are guranteed in law. Case law has made it possible for a gay man or lesbians not to be sacked from work merely because they are LG or B. The ability to seek redress is the means by which our rights are safeguarded. But many people do not have the time our resources to go to court, that is why the duty is vital because it make employers and providers of services condider in advance the needs of everyone before the event not just after it. It also cteare a level playing field for all providres of services that they are all required to meet thse requirment in a proprtionate manner.
A small charity or privite company delivering services on behalf of a public authority should be able to show evidence that they do not, and have not treated people less favourably because of a protected charactersitic. The public have a right to fairness whoever provides the service s to them. Without the compulsion of the public sector duty this cannot be safeguarded.
If it is possible to simply the law it should be done but the fear is that lawyesr would still pick over ambiguos are unclear wording about who and what is covered by equaluity laws. Overall I beleive that the EQA 2010 provides a good balance and safeguards for equality for all of us.
It seems to me that many people do not know what the equality law says who it protects them or who they should avoid certain behaviours that might be unlawful. The fact that they are ignorant of the law is not a bais for scrapping the law- and if it were so then many peices of imporant legislation would be lost.such as mater relating to fraud, data protection, child safety etc.
Christine Burns MBE said on June 10, 2011 at 1:36 pm
I look on it this way.
When I buy electrical goods I check to see they have quality marks. I check for reviews to know they are safe to use and good value for money.
When I use services, public or private, I want to know in advance that I am going to receive the same quality as everyone else. After all, I pay the same.
So, for organisations to take the trouble to show that they have taken the care to ensure they will provide fair and equitable services to me seems just as reasonable as a manufacturer showing me their goods are safe.
Anything less suggests to me that, as a taxpayer, I may not be getting equal value to my neighbour.